OPINION: State Senator Rodney Tom Responds to Charter School Critics
The senator representing Washington's 48th legislative district weighed in on a blog post that recently appeared on our sister site, Woodinville Patch.
Editor's note: Sen. Rodney Tom (D-Bellevue) sent this in response to a blog post by Nancy Chamberlain that recently appeared on Woodinville Patch. Tom represents the 48th legislative district, which includes parts of Redmond.
---
Nancy,
I’m surprised by the ferocity of the pushback on charter schools. We’ve been very upfront in that they are a very limited component to improving our education system. Why ten new schools per year out of 2271 schools would be such a threat to the system is a telltale sign how engrained we are with the status quo. Let me address the most common concerns regarding charter schools one by one:
1) We already have innovative schools: That’s true, but most of them are not focused on economically disadvantaged areas. In fact, of the state’s 22 innovation schools recently recognized by OSPI, only five had free and reduced lunch concentrations greater than 50%. I would also say that since we already have innovation schools, what would 10 more schools per year hurt? Public education needs to be centered on the needs of the students, not the adults in the system. No one entity should have the sole monopoly to rule over our public schools. Parents of children in persistently failing schools should have options; charter schools give them one option.
2) The bill has a fiscal note when we’re already underfunding our schools: Most of the fiscal note is associated with the transformation zones portion of the bill, not charters. A transformation zone is probably the most cost effective mechanism we have to give these students in persistently failing schools the opportunity for a program of education that was mandated in McCleary. The McCleary decision didn’t’ mandate that the state just pour more money into an antiquated system; it expects the legislature to use its common sense and provide the most cost efficient use of scarce resources to give every child an opportunity for a great education. Transferring control of our 10 to 20 persistently lowest performing schools makes a lot more sense than continuing to empty our coffers on an administration and staff that has proven year after year they can’t improve student outcomes after years of self-directed effort.
3) If it’s appropriate to waive rules for charters, why not waive them for all schools: We’ve tried for years to deal with basic placement issues, and those efforts have been consistently rejected. Charter schools give a very limited number of schools the flexibility to see fit what they think is in the best interest of the students. We’ve taken the qualities of the best charter schools, those that usually have waiting lists to get into, and designed our charter program around them. President Obama, 41 other states, plus the District of Columbia can’t all be wrong. What are you afraid of, it’s only 10 new schools a year out of our existing 2271 schools.
4) Charters won’t have the same level of accountability: That’s true, charter schools will have a much higher level of accountability. A charter school that doesn’t meet its stated goals can be shut down, when was the last time any of our persistently failing schools were shut down?
For me the debate over charter schools is much more than about charters, it’s about real education reform. When Washington State comes in 32nd out of 36 states in the Race to the Top contest designed by a democratic administration, it should be more than a wakeup call that we’re behind the curve on education reform. Charter schools just give parents and students one more option in a system where one size does not fit the needs of all. In the end, this is about student achievement, not about the adults in the system.
Think Peace!
Rodney Tom
State Senator
360.786.7694
800.562.6000 hotline
Charlie Mas
8:37 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Senator Tom dismisses the innovation schools because they are not focused on economically disadvantaged areas, but there is no reason to believe that the charter schools will be focused on economically disadvantaged areas either.
Families already have options with public schools. People are free to send their children to the public school of their choice already.
There is no reason to believe that our most persistently under-performing schools will be the ones that are taken over by charters.
Senator Tom is wrong about efforts to deregulate schools. There are no bills before the senate or the house to loosen state control of public schools.
Our state agencies are supposed to be shutting down schools in Step 5 of NCLB, but they don't. What makes Senator Tom think that they will shut down the charter schools that they are supposed to shut down? I will believe that the state will shut down schools when I see the state shut down a school. Not before.
Charlie Mas
8:37 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Senator Tom is right that we need to pay attention to students and their issues instead of adult issues. The only difference between charter schools and public schools are in the ownership and the governance of the schools. That's an adult issue, not a student issue. Charter schools are all about adults, not students.
Consider schools in low-income communities where the students struggle to meet state standards. Are we going to help them by changing the governance of their school or are we going to help them by changing the way they are taught? We need to change the way they are taught. Charter schools have no special ability to do that.
There is nothing that a charter school can do for students that a public school cannot do.
Melissa Westbrook
2:54 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
"Most of the fiscal note is associated with the transformation zones portion of the bill, not charters."
This is true except for the two facts. Senator Tom will not admit this is NEW money and will not say where the funding will come from. Second, the money is all administrative costs and NONE of it goes into the classroom.
It seems Senator Tom thinks it is better to continue to limit funds to schools until he gets the change he wants. I would think that would be a minority opinion in the Legislature as I have not heard another person there say we should continue to underfund schools.
What am I afraid of? Here's a list:
- this bill does not require that charter board members who will be in these schools working get the same fingerprint/background check as others in the building
- this bill has very little room for parent input/oversight; there is also no mechanism for communities where these charters will sit to give input
- the word "founders" in the enrollment process is not defined. In states with charters, the word has been used loosely and charters have used it to get "donations" from parents to get to the head of the lottery line
- there is not enough assurance that educationally disadvantaged students would be served when the charter proposals will go all go to a lottery system to be picked
There's a lot wrong with this bill.